A tricky balance about government funding: Solutions and tradeoffs
When governments run deficits it indicates a stalemate between opposition to tax increases and opposition to service cuts. In an ideal world we would spend only the money we have. Most people would agree. But we disagree over what is a reasonable tax rate and what are reasonable levels of service. These are difficult conversations to have.
Two months ago Peggy Revell of the Medicine Hat News wrote an editorial defending libraries in light of the significant cuts Saskatchewan initially proposed to public library funding. She described the evolution public libraries have undergone and the integral place they have in our communities. A valuable public space that has become rare in today’s society. As an employee of the Medicine Hat Public Library and a believer in our mission I was happy to see her public support. But her editorial also underscored why these conversations about service levels are hard.
Public libraries do good work and are filled with capable, dedicated people. I can attest to this, but every recipient of public funds could be the object of similar praise. Similar editorials could be penned about the police, the archives, the firefighters, the arts, housing support, our public parks. The list goes on.
The question is not “should we fund libraries?” The question is “to what level should we fund them?” Or can we accomplish the same goals differently? The same question can and should be applied to all public sectors. No one should be exempt from scrutiny.
Libraries are not perfect. We are not some paragon of public service wholly deserving of ever increasing public funds. In short we are like all other organizations that receive public funding. We do good work. Occasionally we make mistakes. We always strive to improve and to offer value to the taxpayer and our community. It’s always uncomfortable to justify your funding, but that is the reality of life in a world with limited resources.
Communities must have these conversations in order to decide how best to allocate them. But when we paint librarians or police or firefighters as saints it makes it difficult to have realistic conversations about solutions and tradeoffs.
Brad Wall is not a bad person because he proposed drastic cuts (since withdrawn) to public library funding. Rachel Notley is not a good person because she hasn’t. Both are trying to balance different goods. Leaders suggest a course of action then it is us, the citizens, who must decide the path right for us.
@KrisSamraj is a writer. He's going to favour us with some words from time to time.